John 14:6

Jane.Doe · Jul 13, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
.
I post from Christian websites;

Copy-pasting another person's words is mindless nothingness.

What is much better: to be thoughtful and respectful in one's conduct. Talk WITH a person: spending the time to actually understand them, have charity, and share your own thoughts. That's actual Christian behavior.

@Dogknox20, I would love it if you were to show me such Christian behavior. I have great respect for the Catholic faith, and spent many years studying it (attending services and Sacraments, reading pro-Catholic materials, asking questions, etc). There's a rich tradition there, and zero need for any Catholic to use strawman arguments to "defend" their faith -- no no!

Katzpur · Jul 13, 2021

Dogknox20 said:

I say no more!

Click to expand...

Katzpur said:

Well, thank God for that. Let's just hope you have enough self-control to keep that promise.

Click to expand...

Dogknox20 said:
I say it again... "To be Christian" you MUST believe what Christians teach and believe.. The Mormon is NOT Christian!!

Well, that promise lasted less than 12 hours. Time to go to confession. Say a few "Hail Marys" (not that doing so is biblical) and consider yourself absolved.

Clear · Jul 14, 2021

Jane.Doe said:
@Dogknox20 , you're arguing against a strawman that no one actually believes..

Katzpur said:
I couldn't possibly have said it better myself, Jane. It's always so amusing to have someone try to tell me what I believe, as if they know more about my religious beliefs than I do myself. Better still is when they are so lazy that they resort to quoting out-of-context statements taken from an anti-Mormon website.

I have to agree with these summaries.

1) THE HARM IN MISREPRESENTATION AND THE PROBLEM WITH STRAWMEN
Willing misrepresentation does not educate anyone and offering irrelevant strawmen leaves the actual beliefs of the people it is aimed at, untouched.

Another problem with misrepresentation by a Christian is that others who see the willingness to misrepresent in an individual Christian may generalize to form the opinion that Christians in general are willing to misrepresent and mischaracterize and are therefore not to be trusted.
This harms the Christian cause.

Making claims that essentially mean "All Christians who do not believe in the trinity Dogknox20 believes in are not 'real' Christians." is an arbitrary, self-centered, and silly rule and tells us more about the personality of the claimant, than it does a historical doctrine.

2) THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS AND THEIR CHRISTIANITY ARE MORE LIKELY TO REPRESENT AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY THAN THE LATER ROMAN SCHISM
It is strange to have @Dogknox20, who comes from a roman schismatic movement that became essentially a political organization bent on gaining power and influence and wealth through oppression and theft try to say the earliest Christians with their doctrines and beliefs are not "real" Christians, but instead to suggest the trinity created by a later schismatic Christian movement are the "real" Christians.
Such claims are, historically, incoherent.

Of course there are Christians who believe in different models of the trinity.

I do not think the earliest Judeo-Christians with their model of the trinity were not "Christians" simply because they described a different trinity than that of the later models created by later Christian movements.

Clear
δρειεινεω και φυφυτζω

Dogknox20 · Jul 14, 2021

Clear said:
I have to agree with these summaries.

1) THE HARM IN MISREPRESENTATION AND THE PROBLEM WITH STRAWMEN
Willing misrepresentation does not educate anyone and offering irrelevant strawmen leaves the actual beliefs of the people it is aimed at, untouched.

Another problem with misrepresentation by a Christian is that others who see the willingness to misrepresent in an individual Christian may generalize to form the opinion that Christians in general are willing to misrepresent and mischaracterize and are therefore not to be trusted.
This harms the Christian cause.

Making claims that essentially mean "All Christians who do not believe in the trinity Dogknox20 believes in are not 'real' Christians." is an arbitrary, self-centered, and silly rule and tells us more about the personality of the claimant, than it does a historical doctrine.

2) THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS AND THEIR CHRISTIANITY ARE MORE LIKELY TO REPRESENT AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY THAN THE LATER ROMAN SCHISM
It is strange to have @Dogknox20, who comes from a roman schismatic movement that became essentially a political organization bent on gaining power and influence and wealth through oppression and theft try to say the earliest Christians with their doctrines and beliefs are not "real" Christians, but instead to suggest the trinity created by a later schismatic Christian movement are the "real" Christians.
Such claims are, historically, incoherent.

Of course there are Christians who believe in different models of the trinity.

I do not think the earliest Judeo-Christians with their model of the trinity were not "Christians" simply because they described a different trinity than that of the later models created by later Christian movements.

Clear
δρειεινεω και φυφυτζω

.
Hello Clear
I reply.... I go to Christian web sites they point out the errors of the Mormon church/religion! I don't make it up.. If you don't believe me? Check it out yourself do your own homework!
And there you go sounding off on nothing you know about!

You have no proof just your opinion I post scriptures.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Clear this verse (above) is prophesy!

Arius WAS among Christians; he was a Catholic Priest! This prophesy can only work in the one direction.. Catholics were NOT among Arius! This prophesy tells us; from AMONG Christians will come false teachers: HERITICS! Arius was a Christian until he taught "Jesus is NOT God"! Then he was rejected by Christians as a False teacher just as Prophesy foretold!
Christians have always taught Jesus is God!

Clear the next verse tells us.. The Catholic Church is "The Way Of Truth"!
2 Peter2:2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Clear It proves the LDS and for that matter and all who reject the Catholic Church cannot be "The Way Of Truth"! Again I point out the Prophesy cannot work in the reverse "Arius was rejected as a False Teacher by the One Church Jesus established he was AMONG Catholic'!
There can only be One Truth 2+2=4 Jesus established ONE Church all others were formed by Men who are forced to reject the scriptures OTHERWISE..

Clear otherwise they would be Catholics!

Clear · Jul 14, 2021

Hi @Dogknox20

CONCERNING THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE TRINITY OF GOD THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Your response in post #204 is simply an ad hominem and is irrelevant to my points.

For examples : Regarding : THE HARM IN MISREPRESENTATION AND THE PROBLEM WITH STRAWMEN

Willing misrepresentation does not educate anyone and offering irrelevant strawmen leaves the actual beliefs of the people it is aimed at, untouched.

While you claim that Christians must believe in the version of the trinity you believe in or else those believers in Christ "are not Christians", this is simply an illogical form of name calling that smacks of misplaced pride rather than any logical argument.

When multiple other posters pointed out the fallacy of this claim, your response has been to simply repeat the claim rather than to offer rational and objective data.
The inability to see that your interpretation of religion has no advantage over the religion of the earliest Judeo-Christians with their interpretations is not helpful historically.

I also believe that the willingness of a christian to misrepresent others does not go unnoticed by investigators of religion and agnostics and athiests who see forms of dishonesty as a justification to justify their own opinion that Christians in general are willing to misrepresent and mischaracterize and are therefore not to be trusted.

My point was that mischaracterizations are, in this way, another mechanism used to justify dismissing christian religion in general.

Misusing the texts and offering silly interpretations of the Christian text does not help, but causes the same damage to Christian credibility.

For example, you say of 2 Peter 2:1-2 : "Clear the next verse tells us.. The Catholic Church is "The Way Of Truth"! 2 Peter2:2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. (Dogknox20, in post #204)

This verse does not speak of the roman (Catholic) schism of later centuries that became the roman "Catholic Church".

It is, instead, a perfect example of the very principle that I am trying to point out :
Improper (depraved) conduct by Christians (such as misrepresenting other Christians or making false claims) "will bring the way of truth into disrepute".

Improper behavior (and improper claims) by Christians was not helpful when 2 Pet 2:2 was written, and it is not helpful nowadays. The scriptures that speak of "false teachers" applied as much to the later organization the became the roman "Catholic" Church as to any other organization.

Making claims that essentially mean "All Christians who do not believe in the trinity Dogknox20 believes in are not 'real' Christians." was not a doctrine of early Christianity but remains an arbitrary, self-centered, and silly rule and tells us more about the personality of the claimant than it does a n authentic historical doctrine.

The second point I made is that
2) THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS AND THEIR CHRISTIANITY ARE MORE LIKELY TO REPRESENT AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY THAN THE LATER ROMAN SCHISM

The roman "Catholic" organization of the later centuries is not the same organization that Christ started in the earliest days of the Christian movement.

The early Christian movement was not a political movement.
The early Christian movement was not essentially a political organization.
The early Christian movement was not bent on gaining political power.
The early Christian movement was not bent on gaining wealth.
The early Christian movement did not attempt to obtain political power and wealth through oppression.

The later organization that became the Roman "Catholic Church" WAS a political movement (religious, but political),
the Roman "Catholic Church" WAS bent on gaining political power,
the Roman "Catholic Church" WAS bent on gaining wealth, and
the Roman "Catholic Church" DID these things by oppression and slavery.
To claim that the organization that did these things had the correct model of the trinity and all others were not Christians is, simply because that schizm is "old", is, historically, incoherent.

Of course there are Christians who believe in different models of the trinity.

I do not think the earliest Judeo-Christians with their model of the trinity "were not Christians" simply because they described a different trinity than that of the later models created by later Christian movements.

Clear
δρειδρδρω και φυφυτζω

Dogknox20 · Jul 14, 2021

Clear said:
Hi @Dogknox20

CONCERNING THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE TRINITY OF GOD THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Your response in post #204 is simply an ad hominem and is irrelevant to my points.

For examples : Regarding : THE HARM IN MISREPRESENTATION AND THE PROBLEM WITH STRAWMEN

Willing misrepresentation does not educate anyone and offering irrelevant strawmen leaves the actual beliefs of the people it is aimed at, untouched.

While you claim that Christians must believe in the version of the trinity you believe in or else those believers in Christ "are not Christians", this is simply an illogical form of name calling that smacks of misplaced pride rather than any logical argument.

When multiple other posters pointed out the fallacy of this claim, your response has been to simply repeat the claim rather than to offer rational and objective data.
The inability to see that your interpretation of religion has no advantage over the religion of the earliest Judeo-Christians with their interpretations is not helpful historically.

I also believe that the willingness of a christian to misrepresent others does not go unnoticed by investigators of religion and agnostics and athiests who see forms of dishonesty as a justification to justify their own opinion that Christians in general are willing to misrepresent and mischaracterize and are therefore not to be trusted.

My point was that mischaracterizations are, in this way, another mechanism used to justify dismissing christian religion in general.

Misusing the texts and offering silly interpretations of the Christian text does not help, but causes the same damage to Christian credibility.

For example, you say of 2 Peter 2:1-2 : "Clear the next verse tells us.. The Catholic Church is "The Way Of Truth"! 2 Peter2:2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. (Dogknox20, in post #204)

This verse does not speak of the roman (Catholic) schism of later centuries that became the roman "Catholic Church".

It is, instead, a perfect example of the very principle that I am trying to point out :
Improper (depraved) conduct by Christians (such as misrepresenting other Christians or making false claims) "will bring the way of truth into disrepute".

Improper behavior (and improper claims) by Christians was not helpful when 2 Pet 2:2 was written, and it is not helpful nowadays. The scriptures that speak of "false teachers" applied as much to the later organization the became the roman "Catholic" Church as to any other organization.

Making claims that essentially mean "All Christians who do not believe in the trinity Dogknox20 believes in are not 'real' Christians." was not a doctrine of early Christianity but remains an arbitrary, self-centered, and silly rule and tells us more about the personality of the claimant than it does a n authentic historical doctrine.

The second point I made is that
2) THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS AND THEIR CHRISTIANITY ARE MORE LIKELY TO REPRESENT AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY THAN THE LATER ROMAN SCHISM

The roman "Catholic" organization of the later centuries is not the same organization that Christ started in the earliest days of the Christian movement.

The early Christian movement was not a political movement.
The early Christian movement was not essentially a political organization.
The early Christian movement was not bent on gaining political power.
The early Christian movement was not bent on gaining wealth.
The early Christian movement did not attempt to obtain political power and wealth through oppression.

The later organization that became the Roman "Catholic Church" WAS a political movement (religious, but political),
the Roman "Catholic Church" WAS bent on gaining political power,
the Roman "Catholic Church" WAS bent on gaining wealth, and
the Roman "Catholic Church" DID these things by oppression and slavery.
To claim that the organization that did these things had the correct model of the trinity and all others were not Christians is, simply because that schizm is "old", is, historically, incoherent.

Of course there are Christians who believe in different models of the trinity.

I do not think the earliest Judeo-Christians with their model of the trinity "were not Christians" simply because they described a different trinity than that of the later models created by later Christian movements.

Clear
δρειδρδρω και φυφυτζω

Clear thank you for your post....
I reply: So with your line of reasoning "Ignorance is bless"; Don't upset the apple cart!

I do not make straw men than knock them down.. I state facts! The Christian Jesus is different from the Mormon Jesus, it is just this simple! The Mormon Jesus calls Satan brother! The God of the Mormon has flesh and bone having had sexual intercourse with Mary! They clearly believe in many gods!
Christians REJECT the god of the Mormons their god is a different God! The Mormon cannot be Christian and believe in a different god and many gods!

Clear Rejecting the Scriptures is rejecting Jesus! FACT: Christians believe the words of Jesus they reject the teaching of the man Joe Smith!
John 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

As for your OPINION in the second part of your post it is just that "Opinion"!
The Holy Catholic Church from the very start had Bishops with the Authority to command men!
1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer
1 Timothy 4:11 Command and teach these things.
Do you understand? Jesus established ONE Church before he left us... It can only be the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church there is no others!

Clear Ignatius was ordained by Paul, and then, at the end of the reign of Evodius, he was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter, in A.D. 107 he wrote “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” the Christians of Antioch were part of the Catholic Church. They were indeed Christian disciples, but they were also Catholic.
Did you see it? “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”

Jane.Doe · Jul 14, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
.
You have no proof just your opinion I post scriptures.

Katzpur and I both posted scripture, and were blatently ignored.

Dogknox20 said:
.
Clear It proves the LDS and for that matter and all who reject the Catholic Church cannot be "The Way Of Truth"! Again I point out the Prophesy cannot work in the reverse "Arius was rejected as a False Teacher by the One Church Jesus established he was AMONG Catholic'!
There can only be One Truth 2+2=4 Jesus established ONE Church all others were formed by Men who are forced to reject the scriptures OTHERWISE..

Dogknox20 said:

.
Clear otherwise they would be Catholics!

Click to expand...

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that there are many Christians that aren't Catholic. The terns are not synmoumos.

How do you know what you copy-paste from other websites is “fact”?

Clear · Jul 15, 2021

1) CONCERNING THE HARM IN MISREPRESENTATION AND THE PROBLEM WITH STRAWMEN

Dogknox20 said : “I reply: So with your line of reasoning "Ignorance is bless" (post #206)
Of course this is not my "line of reasoning".
To pretend that was an honest conclusion is simply another example of misrepresentation that is not helpful.
Ignorance is not “bless”. However, misrepresentation creates ignorance of facts rather than relieving ignorance because it leaves those who believe misrepresentation in ignorance of facts.

2) CONCERNING THE CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT OF LATER CENTURIES WAS THE SAME AS THE AUTHENTIC AND ORIGINAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST

The General/Universal gathering (ecclesia) spoken of by Ignatius versus the roman Catholic movement of the later centuries
The Εκκλεσια Καθολικος spoken of by Ignatius was NOT, historically, the same as the Christian movement of later centuries that adopted the name “Catholic”.

For example, the original Church of Jesus Christ held apostolic power while the various bishops of various congregations such as Ignatius (bishop of Antioch) or Linus (bishop of Rome) never gained apostolic authority.

Even the original office of Bishop of the Churches of Jesus Christ were different than the office of bishop created by the roman Christian movement of later centuries. You are confusing and conflating the Church of Jesus with a later Roman Christian movement. Such misrepresentations do not educate anyone.

For examples :

1) The Original εκκλνσια DID have apostolic authority, whereas the later Roman Christian Movement’s organization never, historically, gained the apostolic authority it claimed.

2) The church Ignatius was referring to, that is, the Original Assembly/εκκλνσια/Church of Jesus Christ was quite a different organization than the Roman Christian movement’s organization.

3) The base Characteristics of the Original εκκηεσια, had different goals in many ways; and the goals and methods of accomplishing those goals were substantially different.

4) The Original church’s administration was different than the administration of the Roman Christian Movements administration in many fundamental ways.

5) The Original εκκληεσια’s doctrines originating from apostles and prophets were different than the later Theologian-derived theological doctrines that characterized the Roman Christian movement.

6) The later organization that became the Roman "Catholic Church" WAS a political movement whereas the original Churches of Christ were mainly religious movements.

7) The Roman "Catholic Church" WAS bent on gaining political power whereas the original Churches of Christ were bent on spreading the gospel and salvation.

8) The Roman "Catholic Church" WAS bent on gaining wealth and power, whereas the original Churches of Christ did not seek wealth but to use it’s meager resources for the salvation of souls.

9) The Roman "Catholic Church" DID these things by oppression and slavery whereas the Churches of Christ sought to free mankind and abhorred oppression.

To claim that the roman organization was the same as the original Churches of Christ is historically incoherent.

3) CONCERNING DOGKNOX’ CLAIM THAT IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN HIS VERSION OF THE TRINITY, YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.
To claim that other Christians who do not accept the model of the trinity created by this organization are “not Christian” is religious snobbery and misplaced and misapplied and undeserved pride.
To claim that this political-religious movement had religious authority to create a model of a trinity which was more authoritative than that of the earliest Judeo-Christian movement is historically incoherent.
Why would your model be more authoritative than that of the earliest Judeo-Christian movement?

When other posters point out the illogic of your claim it is not helpful to simply repeat this claim and misrepresenting other doctrines is simply an ad hominem that is irrelevant to your claim.
I might as well point out that other Christian posters are correct that simply repeating your claim is not helpful.

Clear
δρεισινεω και φυφυτζω

Dogknox20 · Jul 15, 2021

Jane.Doe said:
Katzpur and I both posted scripture, and were blatently ignored.

How do you know what you copy-paste from other websites is “fact”?

Hello

Jane.Doe said:
Katzpur and I both posted scripture, and were blatently ignored.

How do you know what you copy-paste from other websites is “fact”?

.
Hello Jane.Doe I hope all is well....
#1 How do I know the Websites post fact?
I don't know if it is fact but I do know all say the same things! Question Why would these many websites post the same things!?

Question... "Do the Mormons teach/preach; Lucifer is the Brother of Jesus"?
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Question "Do the Mormons teach/preach; God the Father had Flesh and Bone!?
John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Question Do the Mormons teach preach; God came to earth as a man had sexual intercourse with Mary?!
Luke 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Question Do the Mormons teach preach Smith proclaimed; "There was NO Christians left on earth"?
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
etc
etc
The book of Mormon was written with Old English when J Smith did not talk with Old English; the King James Bible at the time used Old English!
Did Jesus come to the Americas? No DNA supports this claim!
etc
etc
Jane.Doe Here is a sample of one website... (I do not make this stuff up)

If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).
Why aren't any of the Indian tribes racially or genetically the same as Hebrews? American Indians are all of Mongoloid origin.
Why did Joseph Smith send missionaries to the "Lamanites" if the American Indians at the time weren't really "Lamanites"? (D&C 10:48, 28:8, 54:8, etc.) He certainly considered the Indians to be Lamanites (even if the current leaders of the church no longer believe them to be so). ' The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17). 'He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76). (Note - this was one of Smith's 'founding visions'. Apparently, Moroni was not aware that there were other, non-Semitic natives in America either).

Jane.Doe there are hundreds of Inconsistencies found in the book of Mormon! Again I say it: Christians reject the teachings of the Mormon church!

Clear · Jul 15, 2021

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20

Let me agree with you as far as I am able regarding the principle of authority you brought up.

1) ECCLESIATICAL AUTHORITY IN THE ORIGINAL CHURCH / EKLESSIA OF CHRIST

Dogknox said : “… Ignatius was ordained by Paul, and then, at the end of the reign of Evodius, he was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter (post #206)

The principle is certainly correct that an Apostle possessed Apostolic level of authority to act.

Apostles who possessed general authority ordained bishops who possessed a lessor level of authority over single congregations (επι-σκοπος)

Apostles or Bishops died or were removed from their position, their authority lapsed.

After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles.

2) THE ROMAN CONGREGATION LOST ECCLESIATICAL AUTHORITY JUST AS ALL OTHER CONGREGATIONS DID.

THE CONFLATING OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF LATER CENTURIES WITH THE ORIGINAL CONGREGATION AT ROME

Dogknox said : “The Holy Catholic Church from the very start had Bishops with the Authority to command men!” (post #206)

While Linus, the Bishop of the Roman congregation had the authority given him by an apostle over his congregation, when Linus died, his authority died with him.
IF no other Apostle ordained another bishop, then the congregation had no bishop who was ordained by an apostle.
Bishops of one congregation did not ordain other bishops.
The later organization called “the Holy Catholic Church” was not the same organization as the Church of Christ and it did not have the apostolic authority to ordain bishops.

3) THE RISE OF THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT TO POLITICAL/MILITARY/ECONOMICAL PRE-EMINENCE AMONG THE MULTIPLE CHRISTIAN SCHIZMS

The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem. Thus, there was a time when other cities in Christendom had pre-eminence (e.g. Rome, Antioch, etc.) and a time when Rome wanted pre-eminence. Rome could not claim religious pre-eminence based on Prima-sedes, or being the oldest bishopric, nor due to apostolic origins (other cities held primacy there as well); nor upon many other characteristics. It is inside this political dilemma that one sees the origin of the claim for authority Rome never actually had. This is the reason existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence and New texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence.

The Roman Christian movement engaged in a Political fight for power and prominence that would not have characterized the authentic and original Christian movement. When the “rank of churches became determined by the prominence of cities as civil capitals,” it was inevitable that clashes between the rivals for prominence would take place.

One saw increasingly political characteristics imbue the elections of the Bishop of Rome that did not characterize Bishoprics in the original Christian movement. One saw a characteristic of desires and goals to the accumulation of political / military power and wealth and influence that did not characterize the Early Christian Movement.

As power accrued in the leadership of the Roman Religious movement, one saw the almost immediate tendency to abuse power for the gain of property; for the increase in membership, and for the oppression of those unwilling to confirm. One need only review the early council canons to see the decisions were corrupted in ways that the original Christian movement had never been corrupted.

The nature of the office of Bishop in the Roman Religious Movement was different of a Bishop in the original movement (though the Roman movement used the same name for the office they created). It creates the same confusion as misuse of the word καθολικος.

I believe that there are reasons for the Roman Christian Movements' wonderful rise to pre-eminence that also demonstrate the difference between the Roman movement and the original Christian Movement. For examples:

The Romans were “Politically fortunate” since their religious movements spread was augmented by “politics of the age” in a manner that the original church could not; would not have been able to take advantage of. The Roman Christian movement was spread by active and aggressive missionary activities which, I think was similar to the original movement in many ways, but was contaminated by politico-economic considerations that did not contaminate the original Christian movement to the same degree. The Roman Christian Movement engaged in the Limitation and suppression of competing Christian messages in a manner characteristically different than the original Christian movement would have done (for example: Inquisitions, etc.).

THE GAINING OF POWER AND WEALTH AND INFLUENCE

However, once the Bishop start to vie for personal pre-eminence, they almost immediately engage in worldliness, pride and oppression. “Christ called fishermen and tent makers and tax collectors to this supreme authority,” wrote Chrystostom, “but the present clergy simply spit on those who earn their living by daily toil; whereas if someone is devoted to worldly studies, avoids hard work, etc., they receive him with open arms and admiration. Why is it that they pass right by those who have toiled and sweated all their days for the upbuilding of the church to give all the highest church offices to somebody who had never raised a finger to do any work but wasted all his time dabbling in useless, ornamental, worldly learning?”

Even the arguments at Nicaea become contaminated with the desire for pre-eminence and power and influence. For example, the letters in Patrologiae Latinae `13:583-88 indicate the east-west Arian controversy very much part of the terrible struggle for episcopal pre-eminence. It often became a contest, not between theologians arguing for a specific truth, but between individuals vying for power influence and power and using their arguments to demonstrate their rhetorical and debating skills and superior knowledge.

As the church began to accumulate power and riches under the favor of the emperor, Eusebius tells how “some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalry, hostility, and hatred to each others, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.

“But the events that occurred in the intermediate time, besides those already related, I have thought proper to pass by; I mean particularly the circumstances of the different heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks of Christ…did not govern in a lawful and becoming manner…[there were] ambitious aspirings of many to office, …great schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factions among the new members, against the relics of the church, devising one innovation after another. (Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History, 374-75; Eusebius, De Martyribus Palaestinae 12, in PG 20:1511-14)

THE ALMOST IMMEDIATE TENDENCY TO ABUSE POWER FOR THE GAIN OF PROPERTY, FOR THE INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP AND THE OPRESSION OF THOSE UNWILLING TO CONFORM

Among the clergy, the bishop had all priority, and “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)

Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the judgment of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.

“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)

Such aspirations of individual bishops for power and riches and authority is clearly seen through the rules coming out of synods they held. To decrease inter-bishopric antagonism, in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”

Council of Nicaea, 325 :
Canon 15 Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.

Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”

Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priests or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.

Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis.

Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…

Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.

Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Clear · Jul 15, 2021

POST TWO OF TWO

Sardika a.d. 347
Canon 1 No bishop ever moves from a larger to a smaller city but only in the other direction (the size of the city increasingly become the measure of ambition and domination).

Canon 2 If it can be proven that a man has bribed parties to stir up a clamor for him as bishop “so to make it seem that the people are actually asking him to be their bishop,” he shall be excommunicated. (the reason such a rule had to be established should be obvious)

Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.

Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.

Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)

Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.

Macon. A.d. 585
Canon 15 Whenever a layman meets a higher cleric, he must bow to him. If both are mounted, the layman must remove his hat. If the layman alone is mounted, he must dismount to greet the cleric.

Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.

Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.

Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)

Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.

Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave

Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”

Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.

Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.

Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.

Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years ande must marry Christians. P 130

Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.

Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.

Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as hereticks. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….

The goal of oppression, and gain of riches and control becomes clear as one reviews such canons. I believe that such policies would, over a period of several hundred years, bring to the roman religious movement, the very things such rules and actions were designed to bring to them. As the clergy asserted greater and greater control of government, private life, and family life, the accumulation of power and resources would have happened at an increasing rate.

However, such policies also point out the differences between the organization that came to be the Roman Catholic Church of later centuries and the original roman congregation that had been part of the Church of Christ. Clearly, we are speaking of different organizations with different goals and different methods and differing use of the types of power and authority they yield.

4) THE INSISTENCE THAT ALL OTHER CHRISTIANS THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR MODEL OF THE TRINITY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS

It is an abuse of logic to assume that you have the power to declare that other Christians that do not believe your doctrines are "Not Christians".
You still have not told readers why your interpretation of the gospel trumps the interpretation of the earliest Judeo-Christians.

Clear
δρτωτζσι και φυφυτζω

Jane.Doe · Jul 15, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
Hello
Hello Jane.Doe I hope all is well....
#1 How do I know the Websites post fact?
I don't know if it is fact but I do know all say the same things!

So you definition of "truth" = "I can spam a lot of websites whom likewise copy/pasted the same thing so it must be true!".

Wow....

Do you think Christ and early Christians likewise appealed to popular opinion for thier determination of Truth?

I've tried extremely hard this conversation to be polite with you. I do actually have a lot of respect for and have thoroughly studied your claimed faith. But your complete lack of interest in scholarship, real investigation, or Christ-like behavior ... frankly, there's nothing to be gained by me talking to you.

Dogknox20 · Jul 15, 2021

Clear said:
POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20

Let me agree with you as far as I am able regarding the principle of authority you brought up.

1) ECCLESIATICAL AUTHORITY IN THE ORIGINAL CHURCH / EKLESSIA OF CHRIST

Dogknox said : “… Ignatius was ordained by Paul, and then, at the end of the reign of Evodius, he was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter (post #206)

The principle is certainly correct that an Apostle possessed Apostolic level of authority to act.

Apostles who possessed general authority ordained bishops who possessed a lessor level of authority over single congregations (επι-σκοπος)

Apostles or Bishops died or were removed from their position, their authority lapsed.

After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles.

.
Clear You have a large post..... I cannot possibly reply with any accurate account to all your objections! In the future you must break it up to smaller bites!
Your words... After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles.
Scripture.. 20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.
Acts 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

The Holy Catholic Church established by Jesus has an unbroken linage back to Peter the FIRST Chief Shepherd!
1. St Peter; martyr; 42-67
2. St Linus, of Tuscia (Volterra?); martyr; 67-78
3. St Anacletus I, of Rome; martyr; 78-90 (?)
4. St Clement I, of the Roman Flavian gens; martyr; 90-99 (?)
5. St Evaristus, of Greece (or of Bethlehem); martyr; 99-105 (?)
6. St Alexander I, of Rome; martyr; 105-115 (?)
7. St Sixtus I, of Rome; martyr; 115-125 (?)
8. St Telesphorus, of Greece; martyr; 125-136 (?)
9. St Iginus, of Greece; martyr; 136-140 (?)
10. St Pius I, of Italy; martyr; 140-155 (?)
11. St Anicetus, of Syria; martyr; 155-166 (?)
12. St Soter, of Campania (Fundi?);martyr; 166-175 (?)
13. St Eleutherus, of Epirus(Nicopolis?); martyr; 175-189
14. St Victor I, of Africa; martyr; 189-199
15. St Zephyrinus, of Rome; martyr; 199-217
16. St Calixtus, of Rome; martyr; 217-222
[Hippolytus, 217-235]
17. St Urban I, of Rome; martyr; 222-230
18. St Pontianus, of Rome; martyr; 21 July 230-28 Sept 235
19. St Anterus, of Greece; martyr; 21 Nov 235-3 Jan 236
20. St Fabian, of Rome; martyr; 10 Jan 236-20 Jan 250
21. St Cornelius, of Rome; martyr; March 251-June 253
[Novatian, 251-258]
etc
etc
Clear 265 Popes up to today... Pope Francis!
No other church can make this claim!

Your words.. After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles. Well duh! After the Apostles died the AUTHORITY of the BISHOP was carried on by the direct laying on of hands, by the existing Bishops!

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

FACT: Jesus established ONE CHURCH! "You are ROCK and on you I will build my Church"! Church (Singular) not plural! There can only be one Church because there can only be One TRUTH! 2+2=4
Clear To be in Protest against the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church you MUST reject the scriptures!
"I am with you ALWAYS to the very end of time"!
"The Church is Holy Blameless without stain"!
"Jesus loves his Church he died for his Church"!
"I will sent the advocate to be with you FOREVER"!
"The Church is the Pillar and the foundation of truth"!
"When the Holy Spirit comes he will guide you into All Truth"!
"He who hears you hears me, he who rejects your reject me and God"!
etc

Dogknox20 · Jul 15, 2021

Clear said:
POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20

Let me agree with you as far as I am able regarding the principle of authority you brought up.

1) ECCLESIATICAL AUTHORITY IN THE ORIGINAL CHURCH / EKLESSIA OF CHRIST

Dogknox said : “… Ignatius was ordained by Paul, and then, at the end of the reign of Evodius, he was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter (post #206)

The principle is certainly correct that an Apostle possessed Apostolic level of authority to act.

Apostles who possessed general authority ordained bishops who possessed a lessor level of authority over single congregations (επι-σκοπος)

Apostles or Bishops died or were removed from their position, their authority lapsed.

After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles.

.
Clear You have a large post..... I cannot possibly reply with any accurate account to all your objections! In the future you must break it up to smaller bites!
Your words... After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles.
Scripture.. 20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.
Acts 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

The Holy Catholic Church established by Jesus has an unbroken linage back to Peter the FIRST Chief Shepherd!
1. St Peter; martyr; 42-67
2. St Linus, of Tuscia (Volterra?); martyr; 67-78
3. St Anacletus I, of Rome; martyr; 78-90 (?)
4. St Clement I, of the Roman Flavian gens; martyr; 90-99 (?)
5. St Evaristus, of Greece (or of Bethlehem); martyr; 99-105 (?)
6. St Alexander I, of Rome; martyr; 105-115 (?)
7. St Sixtus I, of Rome; martyr; 115-125 (?)
8. St Telesphorus, of Greece; martyr; 125-136 (?)
9. St Iginus, of Greece; martyr; 136-140 (?)
10. St Pius I, of Italy; martyr; 140-155 (?)
11. St Anicetus, of Syria; martyr; 155-166 (?)
12. St Soter, of Campania (Fundi?);martyr; 166-175 (?)
13. St Eleutherus, of Epirus(Nicopolis?); martyr; 175-189
14. St Victor I, of Africa; martyr; 189-199
15. St Zephyrinus, of Rome; martyr; 199-217
16. St Calixtus, of Rome; martyr; 217-222
[Hippolytus, 217-235]
17. St Urban I, of Rome; martyr; 222-230
18. St Pontianus, of Rome; martyr; 21 July 230-28 Sept 235
19. St Anterus, of Greece; martyr; 21 Nov 235-3 Jan 236
20. St Fabian, of Rome; martyr; 10 Jan 236-20 Jan 250
21. St Cornelius, of Rome; martyr; March 251-June 253
[Novatian, 251-258]
etc
etc
Clear 265 Popes up to today... Pope Francis!
No other church can make this claim!

Your words.. After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles. Well duh! After the Apostles died the AUTHORITY of the BISHOP was carried on by the direct laying on of hands, by the existing Bishops!

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

FACT: Jesus established ONE CHURCH! "You are ROCK and on you I will build my Church"! Church (Singular) not plural! There can only be one Church because there can only be One TRUTH! 2+2=4
Clear To be in Protest against the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church you MUST reject the scriptures!
"I am with you ALWAYS to the very end of time"!
"The Church is Holy Blameless without stain"!
"Jesus loves his Church he died for his Church"!
"I will sent the advocate to be with you FOREVER"!
"The Church is the Pillar and the foundation of truth"!
"When the Holy Spirit comes he will guide you into All Truth"!
"He who hears you hears me, he who rejects your reject me and God"!
etc

Dogknox20 · Jul 15, 2021

Clear said:
POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20

3) THE RISE OF THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT TO POLITICAL/MILITARY/ECONOMICAL PRE-EMINENCE AMONG THE MULTIPLE CHRISTIAN SCHIZMS

The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem. Thus, there was a time when other cities in Christendom had pre-eminence (e.g. Rome, Antioch, etc.) and a time when Rome wanted pre-eminence. Rome could not claim religious pre-eminence based on Prima-sedes, or being the oldest bishopric, nor due to apostolic origins (other cities held primacy there as well); nor upon many other characteristics. It is inside this political dilemma that one sees the origin of the claim for authority Rome never actually had. This is the reason existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence and New texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence.

The Roman Christian movement engaged in a Political fight for power and prominence that would not have characterized the authentic and original Christian movement. When the “rank of churches became determined by the prominence of cities as civil capitals,” it was inevitable that clashes between the rivals for prominence would take place.

One saw increasingly political characteristics imbue the elections of the Bishop of Rome that did not characterize Bishoprics in the original Christian movement. One saw a characteristic of desires and goals to the accumulation of political / military power and wealth and influence that did not characterize the Early Christian Movement.

As power accrued in the leadership of the Roman Religious movement, one saw the almost immediate tendency to abuse power for the gain of property; for the increase in membership, and for the oppression of those unwilling to confirm. One need only review the early council canons to see the decisions were corrupted in ways that the original Christian movement had never been corrupted.

The nature of the office of Bishop in the Roman Religious Movement was different of a Bishop in the original movement (though the Roman movement used the same name for the office they created). It creates the same confusion as misuse of the word καθολικος.

I believe that there are reasons for the Roman Christian Movements' wonderful rise to pre-eminence that also demonstrate the difference between the Roman movement and the original Christian Movement. For examples:

The Romans were “Politically fortunate” since their religious movements spread was augmented by “politics of the age” in a manner that the original church could not; would not have been able to take advantage of. The Roman Christian movement was spread by active and aggressive missionary activities which, I think was similar to the original movement in many ways, but was contaminated by politico-economic considerations that did not contaminate the original Christian movement to the same degree. The Roman Christian Movement engaged in the Limitation and suppression of competing Christian messages in a manner characteristically different than the original Christian movement would have done (for example: Inquisitions, etc.).

THE GAINING OF POWER AND WEALTH AND INFLUENCE

However, once the Bishop start to vie for personal pre-eminence, they almost immediately engage in worldliness, pride and oppression. “Christ called fishermen and tent makers and tax collectors to this supreme authority,” wrote Chrystostom, “but the present clergy simply spit on those who earn their living by daily toil; whereas if someone is devoted to worldly studies, avoids hard work, etc., they receive him with open arms and admiration. Why is it that they pass right by those who have toiled and sweated all their days for the upbuilding of the church to give all the highest church offices to somebody who had never raised a finger to do any work but wasted all his time dabbling in useless, ornamental, worldly learning?”

Even the arguments at Nicaea become contaminated with the desire for pre-eminence and power and influence. For example, the letters in Patrologiae Latinae `13:583-88 indicate the east-west Arian controversy very much part of the terrible struggle for episcopal pre-eminence. It often became a contest, not between theologians arguing for a specific truth, but between individuals vying for power influence and power and using their arguments to demonstrate their rhetorical and debating skills and superior knowledge.

As the church began to accumulate power and riches under the favor of the emperor, Eusebius tells how “some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalry, hostility, and hatred to each others, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.

“But the events that occurred in the intermediate time, besides those already related, I have thought proper to pass by; I mean particularly the circumstances of the different heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks of Christ…did not govern in a lawful and becoming manner…[there were] ambitious aspirings of many to office, …great schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factions among the new members, against the relics of the church, devising one innovation after another. (Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History, 374-75; Eusebius, De Martyribus Palaestinae 12, in PG 20:1511-14)

THE ALMOST IMMEDIATE TENDENCY TO ABUSE POWER FOR THE GAIN OF PROPERTY, FOR THE INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP AND THE OPRESSION OF THOSE UNWILLING TO CONFORM

Among the clergy, the bishop had all priority, and “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)

Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the judgment of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.

“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)

Such aspirations of individual bishops for power and riches and authority is clearly seen through the rules coming out of synods they held. To decrease inter-bishopric antagonism, in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”

Council of Nicaea, 325 :
Canon 15 Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.

Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”

Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priests or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.

Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis.

Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…

Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.

Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

I reply... You have lots of OPINION! This is just it YOUR OPPINION and accusation!
FACT: The Holy Catholic Church made the bible 400 years AFTER Jesus! She ALONE with the Help of the Holy Spirit decided the truly Inspired letters from the many hundreds of phony letters in circulation! NO ONE...

Clear no one knew what was inspired and what was not until the AUTHORITY of the Holy Catholic Church decided the inspired letters! THEN..

Clear then she put all the truly Inspired letters into one book she named "The Bible"!
Toss your bible out of your stinking bathroom window if you reject the AUTHORITY of the Holy Catholic Church; how can you accept your bible is accurate inspired words of God if you reject the Authority that put it together!?

Again I must remind you... To protest against the Holy Catholic Church you MUST reject the scriptures!
"I am with you ALWAYS to the very end or the world"!
Clear Jesus started with his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church he remains ALWAYS with her to this day! To say different you MUST reject the words of God as lies!

Dogknox20 · Jul 15, 2021

[QUOTE="Jane.Doe said:
So you definition of "truth" = "I can spam a lot of websites whom likewise copy/pasted the same thing so it must be true!".

Wow....

Do you think Christ and early Christians likewise appealed to popular opinion for thier determination of Truth?

I've tried extremely hard this conversation to be polite with you. I do actually have a lot of respect for and have thoroughly studied your claimed faith. But your complete lack of interest in scholarship, real investigation, or Christ-like behavior ... frankly, there's nothing to be gained by me talking to you.

, post: 7239437, member: 58517"]So you definition of "truth" = "I can spam a lot of websites whom likewise copy/pasted the same thing so it must be true!".

Wow....

Do you think Christ and early Christians likewise appealed to popular opinion for thier determination of Truth?

I've tried extremely hard this conversation to be polite with you. I do actually have a lot of respect for and have thoroughly studied your claimed faith. But your complete lack of interest in scholarship, real investigation, or Christ-like behavior ... frankly, there's nothing to be gained by me talking to you.[/QUOTE]

Jane.Doe I hope all is well...
I reply!
You don't like what I post.... Sorry! I know Jesus established ONE Church and Jesus remains ALWAYS with his Church to this very day!
Scripture... Matt 28:20 "I am with you ALWAYS to the very end of the world!"

Jane.Doe ALWAYS means Jesus did not leave, it means he is still with the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church he established 2000 years ago!
"You are ROCK and on you I will build my Church"! Singular ONE CHURCH!

Matt 7: 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Jesus build on ROCK never will his house fall! God is NOT foolish he did NOT build on sand! J Smith tells you God built on sand!

I am polite with you... I think highly of you! I pointed out to you the many errors of Joseph Smith and his teachings... By using the many Christians websites I am Proving to you they are NOT my opinion but what Christians think of the many hundreds of convoluted teachings of the LDS church!
Jane.Doe I am NOT making this stuff up! There are many websites to support my claims!

To protest against the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church you MUST reject the scriptures!

Jane.Doe · Jul 15, 2021

@Dogknox20
I'm a person who's extremely interested in Truth. I do not rely on mass opinion. I seek truth passionately, devoting tons of energy and research into it. For example,. when I wanted to better understand Catholic beliefs, I spent years attending Masses & Sacraments, reading RCIA & CCC materials, asking questions of knowledgeable Catholics, etc. Yes, it's time consuming, takes efforts, and makes you look at things a different way, but truthfulness is worth any effort, and I wanted to truthfully understand what Catholics believe. That is my love of Truth, and my love of Catholic people.

Catholicism is indeed a strong Christian faith and there is much there I respect. Strong, reasoned, thoughtful, interested in truth without a need to ever touch a logical fallacy or to treat others poorly.

I wish & pray that you will one day exhibit those traits I do so admire.

Clear · Jul 15, 2021

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20

1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONCE THE APOSTLES DIED, THERE WERE NO MORE APOSTLES TO ORDAIN MORE BISHOPS

Dogknox said : “… Ignatius was ordained by Paul, and then, at the end of the reign of Evodius, he was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter (post #206)
Clear said : “... After the apostles Died, no more bishops were ordained by apostles.
Dogknox replied “Acts 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

While the apostles lived, they could ordain other apostles and bishops etc.
Your quote does not tell us that after the apostles died, they were able to ordain more bishops.

2) REGARDING SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EARLY CHURCHES OF CHRIST AND THE LATER ROMAN CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION

REGARDING UNRIGHTEOUS POLICIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF THE AUTHENTIC CHURCH OF CHRIST

Clear said :
Among the clergy, the bishop had all priority, and “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)

Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the judgment of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.

“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)

Such aspirations of individual bishops for power and riches and authority is clearly seen through the rules coming out of synods they held. To decrease inter-bishopric antagonism, in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”

Council of Nicaea, 325 :
Canon 15 Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.

Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”

Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priests or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.

Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis.

Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…

Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.

Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.

Sardika a.d. 347
Canon 1 No bishop ever moves from a larger to a smaller city but only in the other direction (the size of the city increasingly become the measure of ambition and domination).

Canon 2 If it can be proven that a man has bribed parties to stir up a clamor for him as bishop “so to make it seem that the people are actually asking him to be their bishop,” he shall be excommunicated. (the reason such a rule had to be established should be obvious)

Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.

Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.

Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)

Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.

Macon. A.d. 585
Canon 15 Whenever a layman meets a higher cleric, he must bow to him. If both are mounted, the layman must remove his hat. If the layman alone is mounted, he must dismount to greet the cleric.

Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.

Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.

Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)

Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.

Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Clear · Jul 15, 2021

POST TWO OF TWO

Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”

Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.

Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.

Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.

Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years ande must marry Christians. P 130

Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.

Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.

Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….

3) WHAT, REGARDING THE EARLY CANONS AND POLICIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE "OPINIONS"?

Dogknox20 replied : “I reply... You have lots of OPINION! This is just it YOUR OPPINION and accusation!”

So, are you saying these policies and canons of the Roman Catholic Church are fictitious?
Are you saying you think that these policies of the Roman Catholic Church were fair?
Are you saying these policies are canons represent authentic gospel principles such as mercy and kindness?
Are you saying the original Churches of Christ would have developed such policies of greed and pride and oppression?
You claim the roman church is without a need "to treat others poorly.". Are you saying these policies treat others well and are kind policies?
What are you saying about these policies of the Roman Catholic Church being my "opinion"?
Can you explain?

4) YET ANOTHER SILLY CLAIM
Dogknox20 said : “Again I must remind you... To protest against the Holy Catholic Church you MUST reject the scriptures!”

This is a silly and irrational claim.
The later Roman Catholic organization did not create a single page of scripture, but merely decided which of the early texts it would include in it's canon as did the eastern orthodox Church and others.

I love the scriptures and accept them, but I also recognize that the Roman Catholic Church is, historically, a different church from the original Church of Christ.
There are many, many protestant Christians and protestant Christian churches that fully accept the scriptures.
You are simply applying your own opinion to these churches.

Dogknox20, Nothing you have said so far justifies your claim that all other Christians who have a different model of the trinity than your Church has, "are not Christians."

Clear
δρτωδρνεω

Clear · Jul 15, 2021

Dogknox claimed : "The Holy Catholic Church established by Jesus has an unbroken linage back to Peter the FIRST Chief Shepherd!"

This is simply an attempt to brag. The problem is that is in incorrect historically.
1) Historically, the Apostle Peter was never a sitting Bishop of Rome. This claim was a "back claim" made years later when the roman organization was attempting to gain prominence and power over the other congregations

2) Other than the very earliest Bishops, NONE of the others were ordained by an apostle. Not one.

3) Peter and Paul and other apostles established multiple other congregations besides the roman congregation. They established churches in antioch, ephesus, corinth, etc.
The FIRST christian church was not the congregation in rome, but the one in Jerusalem has primacy.

Dogknox20 claimed : "No other church can make this claim!"
Of course other churches can make this claim. (e.g. eastern orthodox).

The problem is that this claim made by the roman Catholic organization is, historically, incorrect.
Peter was never, historically, a sitting Bishop of Rome.

The roman Catholic organization has tried for hundreds of years to find the actual HISTORICAL connection to the apostle peter having given them his apostolic authority and no historian has yet been able to make that critical connection.

Clear

John 14:6

Active Member

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member